Points system to be replaced?

  • Thread starter Danny
  • 356 comments
  • 21,521 views
Maybe this is a jump the shark moment for F1, the point where it all goes down hill from now on out until the bitter end

The cars are terrible looking this year, the limitless spending and unlimited technology allowed by F1 for the longest time has finally come back to haunt them, and this new rule where wins determine the champion will only bring back more fixed/rigged victories.

As for F1 being a World Championship, VNAF_Ace does make some good points.

The series does not race in North America or Africa, 15 of the 20 drivers are from Europe, and there are no manufacturers from North America either. I can't see how you can call it a World Championship if there is zero participation from North America.

But int he end, whether it is a true World Championship or not doesn't matter. Racing has always been better in CART or the IRL.

Whoever runs F1 should be relieved of his duties. Their point system is about 5 years behind NASCAR's.

...In 2003, Kenseth won the then-Winston Cup series championship despite winning only one race (that being the third race of the year in Las Vegas Motor Speedway) but ending the season with 25 top-ten finishes. In contrast, Ryan Newman won eight races that year (22% of the 36 races run in 2003), but finished sixth in points...
Click to expand...

Auto makers are dropping out because of the unlimited spending while NASCAR was able to so far survive the crisis in Detroit due to various rules implemented over the years to keep costs down. But Formula 1 beat their chest for the longest time about how many millions the teams wasted to make their car .2 faster.

I'll still watch every Formula 1 race this year. As a motorsport enthusiast I follow everything. But I have a feeling I will be appalled by many things, most notably the certain return of rigged races (teams telling other drivers to slow down to let the teammate win)
 
Last edited:
If this rule goes, then the best team wins the 2009 season by the time f1 hits monte carlo. Nobody wants that to happen, now do you? You want to actually watch the season to the end to find out. FIA, most wins doesn't matter the most, there are other places too. Hamilton won only cause he got more good places than massa. Wins dont always matter. It's how good you did that counts.
 
PJ-FFL
If this rule goes, then the best team wins the 2009 season by the time f1 hits monte carlo. Nobody wants that to happen, now do you?
Click to expand...
Very sound theory ... except that you're assuming onedriver wll win every race from Albert Park to Monte Carlo, and when was the last time that happened? Furthermore, is there anyone in the field who might be able to repeat it?

PJ-FFL
Wins dont always matter. It's how good you did that counts.
Click to expand...
Call me old-fashioned, but I should think the number of wins a driver has implies that he's good.
 
How many drivers have only won races because of how good their car is?

Did Rosberg not deserve the 1982 championship? He exploited the reliability of the DFV engine whilst the faster Turbo's lacked reliability.

Did Lauda not deserve the 1984 championship? He recognised that Prost was the faster driver and therefore decided to beat him with consistent results.

Did Prost not deserve the 1986 championship? He had less of a car than Mansell and Piquet but he was able to take points from both of them as they fought each other for the championship.

Every Formula 1 championship has been determined by who has the most points since the first one in 1950. In changing this rule the FIA has cut its links to its own history.

Under the wins system the championship can be won in the second race! Unlikely yes, but possible. One driver wins the first two races and retires from all the rest. Each of the remaining races is won by a different driver.

There was nothing at all wrong with the old 10, 6, 4, 3, 2 & 1 system. There was enough of a gap between first and second to make wins valuable.

A wins only system can work but only in a one make formula so every driver has a fair chance. Formula 1 has never been like that though, it's always been about being in the right car and team at the right moment.
 
Last edited:
niky
I was thinking (elsewhere)... can we make this like our old College teachers did back when they were feeling really sadistic? Scoring system is "Right minus Wrong".

Winner gets 10 points. Everyone else gets 9. If the guy with the fastest lap isn't the winner, he gets +1 point. This encourages the winner push extra hard to deny second place that point.

For every ten seconds you are behind the winner, minus one point. If you are more than 100 seconds behind the winner, then, obviously, you get zero points.

If you are lapped, no matter how many seconds behind, you get -1 point. -1 point for every lap behind you are, up to a maximum of -4 points. DNF nets you -5.

That should make for some pretty interesting racing, don'tcha think?
Click to expand...

I think that could get unncessarily confusing, why do we need such radical new systems for scoring? The previous one along with FOTA's suggestion is fine!

Earth
Maybe this is a jump the shark moment for F1, the point where it all goes down hill from now on out until the bitter end

The cars are terrible looking this year, the limitless spending and unlimited technology allowed by F1 for the longest time has finally come back to haunt them, and this new rule where wins determine the champion will only bring back more fixed/rigged victories.

As for F1 being a World Championship, VNAF_Ace does make some good points.

The series does not race in North America or Africa, 15 of the 20 drivers are from Europe, and there are no manufacturers from North America either. I can't see how you can call it a World Championship if there is zero participation from North America.
Click to expand...

This is a bit short sighted to be honest. For one there have previously been drivers from all over the world that have competed and there have been races in both continents you mention. Just becaues there isn't this year doesn't make it any less of a World Championship, the simple fact is there is a limit to how many races you can have on the calendar and Bernie is obsessed with visiting new places....but then in doing so, we now have more races in the Middle East and Asia.

As for drivers, if there was a brilliant driver from the US, Argentina or wherever, the teams would give them a chance, but currently, it just happens to be the preferred drivers are European.

But this is all irrelevant now anyway because next year we have USGPE coming in and the manufacturers are pushing for a North American GP again.

You mention the massive amounts of money spent in F1, well, they have been attempting to reduce the costs, though the new budget cap rule the FIA are introducing is plain retarded, there shouldn't be two sets of rules for different teams and it essentially slaps FOTA around the face because its essentially saying "we don't think you're cutting the costs enough".

Although F1 should reduce some of the rediculous budgets, it should be kept in mind that F1 will always be an expensive business and if it claims to be the forefront of developing technology, it will have to be. I don't want to see it go the standardised route for the sake of saving money, then we will have lost F1's identity completely.
 
Earth
As for F1 being a World Championship, VNAF_Ace does make some good points.

The series does not race in North America or Africa, 15 of the 20 drivers are from Europe, and there are no manufacturers from North America either. I can't see how you can call it a World Championship if there is zero participation from North America.
Click to expand...
Has F1 raced in these places in the past? Yes

Is F1 open to drivers (who can qualify) from any country? Yes


F1 has a history of doing all it can to race, every year, in a very wide range of countries stretching across the entire world.

By your own logic the WRC is not a world championship either, yet it quite clealry spans the globe every year and is open to drivers from any country. CART and IRL have ventured outside the US for a very small number of races each year, that however was not the logic that VNAF_Ace was using, rather that participants alone was enough to qualify sport as world championships (in which case I now proclaim that County Cricket in the UK is a World Championship, as is DTM, BTCC, do I need to keep going?).




Do you race?
Very sound theory ... except that you're assuming onedriver wll win every race from Albert Park to Monte Carlo, and when was the last time that happened? Furthermore, is there anyone in the field who might be able to repeat it?
Click to expand...

Its no more of an assumption than you are making in regard to it providing a to the line battle for the last race of the season.


Do you race?
Call me old-fashioned, but I should think the number of wins a driver has implies that he's good.
Click to expand...
Famine has already clearly pointed out how weak this view on its own can be, in which a driver could win 5 races and DNF the other 12 and still end up Champion if no one else wins more races. The other drivers could have performed blindingly all season with battles to 2nd and 3rd palce, but loose out because they only won four races.

Sorry but given the above a driver that won 4 and came second 12 times is clearly better than one who wins 5 and DNF's/finishes at the back for the rest.

Points based system work, this approach is so deaply flawed it almost beyond belief.


Regards

Scaff
 
niky
This is the weird part.

Given Ferrari is the only team expected to have two real title contenders... wouldn't this rule hurt them much more than other teams? (so much for the Ferrari conspiracy)
Click to expand...

I never thought about this until I read niky's post, but indeed this "most wins gets you the WDC" rule really has a heavy impact (and a negative one, in my opinion) on "team strategy".

Because teams that have a strong line up of drivers, capable of winning races, will be forced to make a choice a lot earlier in the championship. We all know that in the last two years Ferrari "chose" the title contender in the last stages of these championships (Kimi in 2007, Massa in 2008), but as it is now, this choice will have to be made a lot sooner.

In fact, if I was in the position of team manager of a "winning capable team", I would choose my "lead driver" - if not from the start - very soon, clearly after 4 or 5 rounds of the championship.

And this ... also ... is a shame, and very bad to the sport.



PS - Please, don't make of this post another Ferrari/FIA/McLaren/Renault/Hamilton/Alonso "discussion starter". I'm really talking about this looking at the championship and how soring rules affect the way it is run by drivers and teams.
 
Last edited:
In contrast to the 5 wins and 12 DNF winning scenario, you could also have the opposite extreme where 6 or 7 drivers have all won 2 races each, and the title is simply decided by who wins that extra race... say we go into the final race of the season with Alonso, Kubica, Hamilton, Massa, Raikkonen, Kovaleinen and Vettel on two wins each (and Barrichello and Piquet have also nabbed a win each), but Kovaleinen has only finished two races all season i.e. 2 wins, 14 DNF's... under these rules, he can still win the championship. Now, you could call that "exciting", but I call it absurd... OK, this is an extreme example, but given that "closer racing" and "more risks in order to win" is what the FIA seemingly want, it could be more likely to happen than we might hope... Indeed, under the current rules, it is now possible (albeit extremely unlikely) to become F1 World Champion by only completing two races! :crazy:
 
And what happens when there's closer racing and more risk-taking?

Avoidable accidents - leading to penalties, spurious penalties and crashes. And haven't the FIA been trying to make F1 safer since 1994?
 
They were, but they figure it's been a while since somebody died on the track so they thought they might spice things up a bit.

:rolleyes:
 
A bit more of thought on "team orders" and "team strategy".

Basically, we are faced with two scoring systems. One gives us the WDC and is based on 1 point per race. You win, you get one point. You lose, you don't get any. The other is used for WCC and regarding drivers, for overall classification.


So, if for the WDC each race only gives you 1 point or zero, suppose that we reach mid-season with three teams sharing the wins (like last year, after the ninth round we had: Massa and Hamilton with 3 wins each, Kimi with 2, Kubica with 1)

In such a situation, I don't think Ferrari had to make a decision. But ... the 10th round was won by Hamilton (so the wins count was changed to: LH - 4; FM - 3; KR - 2; RK - 1)

Now, suppose this season something similar happens, no matter what teams this time. And imagine this situation:

a) You are team manager of TEAM X;

b) After 10 rounds, your driver A has 3 victories and your driver B has 2 victories;

c) Your most serious contender to the title is driver C, from TEAM Y. He has already 4 victories, and his teammate has none;

d) The 11th race of the season is coming to an end;

e) Driver B leads, driver A is in a close second position.


What will you do?

(try to forget Ferrari and Mclaren about this, and try to think as a team manager, not a Formula 1 fan. Just think Team X is BrawnGP, Driver A is Button, driver B is Barrichelo, Team Y is Williams and Driver C is Nico Rosberg. That'll make you Ross Brawn and you are facing a decision that could give you/take away from you, the WDC championship in the first year of your team)
 
Do you race?
Call me old-fashioned, but I should think the number of wins a driver has implies that he's good.
Click to expand...

If i win 6 times a season and come dead last for the rest, and you win 5 times and get 2nd and 3rd all the other times, do i deserve to win?nuff said
 
FOTA questions the validity of WSMC decisions!


The following is a statement from the Formula One Teams' Association in which they express their unhappiness with the decisions made by the FIA World Motor Sport Council earlier this week.

"Following the decision of the World Motorsport Council of the 17 March 2009 to change the way the drivers’ championship is awarded, the teams gathered and unanimously agreed to question the validity of this decision.

"FOTA had made a proposal that was carefully based on the results of a Global Audience Survey, which allowed listening to preferences of the public, and all the teams firmly believe that these indications should be properly taken into account.



"The amendment to the sporting regulations proposed by the World Motorsport Council was not performed in accordance with the procedure provided for by Appendix 5 of the Sporting Regulations and, as per the provisions of the article 199 of the FIA International Sporting Code, it is too late for FIA to impose a change for the 2009 season that has not obtained the unanimous agreement of all the competitors properly entered into the 2009 Formula 1 Championship.

"Since the change to the scoring system unanimously agreed by the Teams and proposed to FIA did not receive approval of the WMSC, no change can occur in 2009, and the Teams wish to reaffirm their willingness to collaborate with the FIA in order to jointly define a new point system for the 2010 season within a comprehensive set of measures aimed at further stimulating the attractiveness of the F1 Sport."
Click to expand...

Source: http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/090320164731.shtml


I like this part : "... the teams gathered and unanimously agreed to question the validity of this decision. ..."
 
It's not a championship if there isn't any cause for consistancy.

It will push teams to failures, trying to gain an advantage and taking bigger risks, for a single race, especially in qualifying. More likely to happen in the back end of the season.This will undoubtedly be an extra expense. Isn't this the opposite of what the regulations are trying to acheive?

It could also open up the opportunity for another, unexpected driver, to take the win.
Who know what happens in Bernie's head?


EDIT: Just read the above post, and I agree... I like that part too.:D
Guess we have this dicussion again next year.:lol:

Thanks Hun200kmh 👍
 
So even the FIA don't know how to change their own rules. Why does that not surprise me.

Hopefully this will mean the end of this idiotic idea for at least one year.

I await the FIA's response with interest. I feel a Rule Clarification coming.
 
I don't know, I think Mr. Max is trying desperately to break FOTA's unity so maybe he quits on this one and goes elsewhere, into a territory where each team's interests can be different from the others (difusers, just an example)


EDIT: I just read the FIA "international Sporting Code" section concerned and I think FOTA has definitely a good case. Check it out:

CHAPTER XV
STABILISATION OF THE FIA'S DECISIONS

198. Publication of the calendar of the FIA
Championships:
The list of the FIA Championships and the events comprising
them is published each year no later than 31 October
[exceptionally, the deadline for the year 2009 is 15 November,
because of the date of the FIA General Assembly].
Any event withdrawn from the calendar once it has been
published will lose its international status for the year in question.

199. Amendments to regulations:
The FIA may make such changes as it deems necessary to
the regulations. Such changes will be published and will
come into effect in accordance with the following provisions.

a) Safety
Changes that the FIA makes to the regulations for safety
reasons may come into effect without notice or delay.

b) Technical design of the vehicle
(i) Changes to technical regulations or to
Appendix J, adopted by the FIA, will be published
no later than 30 June each year and come into
effect no earlier than 1 January of the year
following their publication, unless the FIA
considers that the changes in question are likely to
have a substantial impact on the technical design
of the vehicle and/or the balance of performance
between the cars, in which case they will come
into effect no earlier than 1 January of the second
year following their publication.
(ii) Changes concerning Formula One come into
effect in accordance with the regulations specific
to that category.

c) Sporting rules and other regulations
Changes to sporting rules and to all regulations other than
those referred to in b) above are published at least 20 days
prior to the opening date for entry applications for the
championship concerned, but never later than 30 November
each year. Such changes cannot come into effect before
1 January of the year following their publication, unless the
FIA considers that the changes in question are likely to have
a substantial impact on the technical design of the vehicle
and/or the balance of performance between the cars, in
which case they will come into effect no earlier than
1 January of the second year following their publication.

d) Shorter notice periods than those mentioned in b) and
c) may be applied, provided that the unanimous agreement
of all competitors properly entered for the championship or
series concerned is obtained.


200. For the requirements of this Chapter XV, publication of
the documents referred to in articles 198 and 199 becomes official
and effective as soon as they are posted on the Internet site
www.fia.com and/or published in the Official Bulletin.

201. Deleted

CHAPTER XVI

....
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hun200kmh
👍 👍 👍 👍 👍
Click to expand...
👍

And just to reiterate, 👍

FIA had argued that the new scoring system would make racing more exciting by encouraging drivers to chase wins.

But several drivers, among them defending champion Lewis Hamilton and Fernando Alonso, criticised the change.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the drivers are not best pleased by the insinuation that they weren't already chasing wins under the current (sensible) scoring system... put it this way, if both Alonso and Hamilton can agree on this issue, then surely the FIA must have an inkling that their decision blew...
 
Perhaps if this season produces some great races, a close championship that goes to the very last race, and with a thrilling finale in the last race, the FIA might scrap the idea.... no, wait...
 
I await a statement from Bernie along the lines of:
"These people are stupid and wrong, the teams have got too much power, I was acting in the interests of the sport etc etc"

Im amazed the WMSC unanimously rejected the FOTA proposal in favour of the wins proposal! Not one person there had the sense to think of the implications!
 
That's good news for us, for now........... The FIA is gonna see how things go for 2009 and decide for 2010. For once they did something good.
 
PJ-FFL
If i win 6 times a season and come dead last for the rest, and you win 5 times and get 2nd and 3rd all the other times, do i deserve to win?nuff said
Click to expand...
In that case, I'd suggest getting treatment for what appears to be a case of dissociative identity disroder.
 
Ecclestone doesn't decide anything in this matter.

The bad guy, from now on, is Luca di Montezemolo. And all "conspiracy theories" should now shift from the FIA/FOM to the FOTA (I'm sure someone will come up with a new meaning for this one).
 

Latest Posts

Back